Former Gouverneur mayor reindicted on grand larceny charge

CANTON  Former Gouverneur Mayor Christopher A. Miller has been reindicted on a charge linked to his alleged swindling of two Gouverneur residents by fraudulently selling them a house.

The state Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, issued a decision Thursday to overturn the Dec. 20 dismissal of a third-degree grand larceny charge against Mr. Miller, 32, of 171 Rowley St., by St. Lawrence County Judge Jerome J. Richards.

Mr. Miller and Dylan Liebenow were co-owners of the house at 31 Edith St. in Gouverneur. In April 2012, Mr. Miller is accused of having sold the home to Ronald and Heather Sliter for $50,000 on a fraudulent land contract because he failed to mention there was a co-owner who did not sign off on the transaction.

Elected mayor in fall 2011, Mr. Miller served in the position for less than a year before resigning in August 2012, six days before he was arrested.

According to the granted appeal, Mr. Miller accepted $10,840 from the purchasers and upon their discovering he was not the sole owner of the property, they vacated the premises and demanded a return of their money.

In the interim, defendant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy but neglected to disclose, among other things, the existence of the underlying land contract on his schedule of personal property, the appeal read.

Judge Richards had dismissed the grand larceny charge along with a charge of first-degree offering a false instrument, citing what he called Assistant District Attorney Jonathan L. Beckers pervasive mishandling of the questioning of witnesses in this case.

Finally, the prosecutor repeatedly interrupted one or more jurors who were trying to ask clarifying questions, and basically strong-armed them into abandoning the attempt to clarify, Judge Richards wrote in his 2012 decision.

While the Appellate Division overturned the decision to dismiss the grand larceny charge, the people conceded at an oral argument that the offering a false instrument charge was properly dismissed and withdrew their challenge to have it overturned.

Contrary to county courts finding, the record as a whole does not reveal a pervasive mishandling of the manner in which this case was presented to the grand jury, the appeal order said. Inasmuch as we are satisfied  based upon our review of the grand jury minutes  that there otherwise is legally sufficient (and admissible) evidence to sustain count 1 of the indictment, the isolated instances of hearsay testimony, which were accompanied by appropriate limiting instructions do not warrant dismissal thereof.

The Appellate Division added that it was persuaded that the prosecutors limited use of leading questions did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceeding. Accordingly, county court erred in concluding that the indictment was subject to dismissal, the order said.

Mr. Miller will be scheduled to return to answer the charge at a date not yet scheduled.

Commenting rules:

Stick to the topic of the article/letter/editorial.

When responding to issues raised by other commenters, do not engage in personal attacks or name-calling.

Comments that include profanity/obscenities or are libelous in nature will be removed without warning.

Violators' commenting privileges may be revoked indefinitely. By commenting you agree to our full Terms of Use.